Site Meter

Category: Law School (Scholarship)


Compilation of Posts on Academic Blogging

Ian Best, a 3L at Ohio State University Law School, has compiled a very comprehensive and helpful repository of blog posts about academic blogging.

An interesting fact about Ian’s blog — he writes:

I’m getting law school credit for blogging. And as far as I know, I’m the first law student to do so.

Maybe I should ask my dean for course relief for blogging. Hmmm. . . .


Going Digital: The Future of Reprints?

reprints1.jpgOne of the great things about law review articles is that you can order a batch of reprints — separately-bound copies of your article that you can send out to a list of your colleagues. I have a large and growing database of various professors, policymakers, journalists, and others who receive copies of my articles — a fact that is not without some irony, since many of these people are in the information privacy law field, and I have written extensively on the problems posed by databases. Thus, ironically, I maintain a database with one of the most extensive collections of people who criticize databases.

It is common practice among law professors to send out reprints widely, as this is a way to present one’s scholarship to others in a highly-readable format. But reprints come at a considerable cost. Recently, I got the price quote for a reprint order for a soon-to-be-published article. Under the pricing scheme, I get 40 free reprints, but that’s not nearly enough for my database, which includes hundreds of people. For 200 extra reprints, it would cost about $744 and for 400 extra it would cost $1059. Wow! I nearly had a heart attack . . . and I’m not even the one paying the bill — my school picks up the tab. Anyway, if I handed a bill for over $1000 to my dean, the keys to my office might not work the next day. Plus, there’s the cost of postage, envelopes, and stationary.

So here’s my idea. I’m thinking of moving toward a system of electronic reprints. I could send out a PDF version of the final article in an email to everybody in my database. In other words, I’d shift from being a junk mailer to a spammer. . . .

In my email, I’d include the text of the letter I would have sent to accompany the reprint, attach the article in PDF format, and possibly include a link to the final version of the paper on SSRN. I’d still order some reprints — about 50 to 100 — and offer to send hard copies of the reprints to anybody who requested them. My guess is that I’d get a few people requesting the actual reprint, but most people interested in reading the article would just print it out from the attached digital version.

Read More


Does Scholarly Writing Have to Be Tedious?

book5a.jpgOver at the new and very engaging blog, LawCulture, Rosa Brooks writes:

As a junior professor, I dutifully churned out law review articles to fill my tenure file. Some of those articles, I think, may even have contained a few good ideas and a few good lines, but all of them suffered, to one degree or another, from the contraints of the genre. Worse yet, I’m fairly sure that practically no one outside my tenure committee and my mother has actually read the damn things (and I have my doubts about my mom). Not that this makes me unusual: the vast majority of law review articles are read by few people, and cited by even fewer. So… what’s it all for?

Now, since I’m devoutly hoping my colleagues won’t actually revoke that tenure vote, I’m awfully tempted to echo Rodell and say goodbye to law reviews. From now on: books, absolutely. Magazine and newspaper articles? Sure. Blogs? We’re trying. Even, perhaps, the occasional law review symposium piece or essay, since those are fairly harmless. But as for those ponderous, still-much-too-long, ludicrously over-footnoted things we call Articles, with that portentously capitalized “A”? No, no, no.

No more going through perfectly good prose and inserting pointless qualifiers and parentheticals; no more searching for vaguely on point articles and cases to fill out footnotes; no more going through the ludicrous and humiliation rituals of submitting pieces to law reviews then playing the expedited review/trading up game.

Over at PrawfsBlawg, Paul Horwitz responds by observing:

Read More


Blogging Without Tenure

lawprofessor5.jpgAt a panel at the AALS conference this year entitled Blogging: Scholarship or Distraction?, Randy Barnett suggested that blogging may not be wise for untenured legal scholars. [Paul Caron of TaxProf Blog (and overlord of the Caron Law Professor Blogging Empire) has the complete highlights of the panel here.]

Is blogging advisable for untenured scholars? I bet that the answer differs in each specific discipline, and I’ll focus my observations on the law. I believe that blogging can be great for untenured legal scholars, but it must be done in the right way.


Why is blogging good for the younger legal scholar?

1. Exposure and Name-Recognition. Blogging brings a level of exposure that junior scholars often do not achieve until much later on in their careers. More people will get exposed to their ideas, read their work, and recognize their name. It often takes years of networking and publishing to develop name recognition in legal academia. Blogging provides a head start.

2. Symposium Invitations. When law reviews or professors are planning symposia, they often brainstorm about whom to invite, and those who most readily come to mind often wind up on the list of presenters. Junior scholar bloggers are at an advantage since there names are more likely to be known.

3. Exposure Beyond One’s Field. Blogging enables scholars to get exposure outside of their fields. There are many scholars whose work I generally won’t be familiar with because I’m not researching or writing in their area. Unless those scholars are particularly well-known, I won’t be too familiar with them. But I may know about them from the blogosphere. When somebody asks me who writes about corporate law, a field I know little about, I immediately think of the folks at the Conglomerate or of Dave Hoffman or Nate Oman here at Concurring Opinions.

Read More


Law Review Citations and Law School Rankings

columbia_law_review.jpgThere’s no shortage of writing on law reviews or law school rankings, to say the least. So why not combine the two?

Questions about law review ranking abound. How does one compare offers from journals at relatively equal schools? Is it better to publish with a journal that is more frequently cited or with one at a higher ranked law school? Is it better to publish with a main law journal at a top 40ish law school or the secondary at a top 10 law school? Questions about law school rankings abound as well, particularly for schools outside of the top 30 or so. (Or so it seems to me.)

I’m partial to citation studies as a way of judging quality. I know that citations have lots of problems as a way of ranking journals (or individual authors). However, I like the objectivity citation studies provide. And so I’m partial to the Washington and Lee Law Library’s website, which provides comprehensive data on citations to hundreds of law journals by other journals and by courts. I’ve found it useful in trying to draw some comparisons between journals. Other people often draw comparisons between journals by looking to the US News ranking of the journal’s school.

Read More


Rating Academic Reputation

book17a.jpgThere’s lot of talk recently about how to rate an academic’s reputation. As scholars, we’ve devoted extensive thought and discussion to the issue. Some ingenious techniques we’ve devised:

1. Count citations to a scholar’s work. Of course, for the reasons Brian Leiter documents, citation counts aren’t an indication that a particular article is any good. Jack Balkin and Sanford Levinson have a hilarious discussion of the foibles of citation counts in their article, How to Win Cites and Influence People, 71 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 843 (1996). They write, for example:

Read More